Researchers have long known about the positive correlation between how much red meat a person eats and that person's chance of developing colorectal cancer. There are plenty of large behavioral health surveys that show this. So the audience for this article will understand the context. Heck, they might even find this article by searching "red meat colorectal cancer" in a database.

It's more complicated than that. For example, why do those who eat mostly plant based (I mean real plants and not processed foods) have lower rates of cancer if both sides get iron? Iron is essential to live.

It could have something to do with amount. For example, Iron from animal products is easier for the body to absorb and there are MUCH higher levels per gram (e.g., beef has 7x the iron kale does). Is it too much iron?

It could be type. You have FE2+, FE3+, heme iron, non-heme iron, etc. This article points to FE3+. Is there something more there?

Is it some combination of things?

There's a lot we don't know.

The study says that only the Fe(III) ions are harmful.

Most iron that can be found in water or in food is in the form of Fe(II) ions, because all minerals that contain Fe(III) ions are insoluble.

The only components of food that are rich in Fe(III) are the hemoglobin from blood and the myoglobin from the "red" muscles, which are used by all vertebrates to transport or store oxygen.

Iron is an essential part of your diet if you want to continue living. So it boils down to genetics, which is probably most cancers.

> So, to reiterate, the researchers found that the iron in red meat reactivated telomerase in colorectal cancer cells, thus driving the progression of the cancer.

Also it doesn't cause the cancer, but iron expedites growth of colorectal cancer cells?

Seems clickbaity if I am reading it right.